bjornthun wrote:
With a close focus of 0.31 meter = 310 mm, I calculate the focal length to 68.8mm at 1:2 magnification. I'm a bit surprised at that figure, since 68.8 > 65, but I don't think the lens gives up focal length as you focus closer. Also 68.8 is the figure for a completely symmetrical lens, which the 65/2 is not.
I prefer macro lenses that maintain their focal length throughought. To me this is an indication that this lens may be special.
I think this will be a heavy lens, around 500 grams at least. I remember the Loxia 85/2.4 at 590 grams surprised us....Show more →
Hmm, wonder why maintaining the lens FL makes it special? My older Zuiko 135 macro which goes on a bellows or autotube does that. Working distance is maintained of course but more light lost due to extension. So it is a double edged sword. Is the implication that the rendering may be different/better? Just curious.
Michael Gordon wrote:
Hmm, wonder why maintaining the lens FL makes it special? My older Zuiko 135 macro which goes on a bellows or autotube does that. Working distance is maintained of course but more light lost due to extension. So it is a double edged sword. Is the implication that the rendering may be different/better? Just curious.
It's a hunch I have, and it does maintain the working distance, which I find very practical. It is common in most modern macro lenses that the focal length drops as you approach the minimum ficus distance, which is only unpractical in my opinion, due to a shortened working distance. The Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar maintains its' focal length almost a 100% as you focus close.
Olympus has always made very fine macro lenses, for the OM system, 43 and now m43. It's one of their specialties. The OM Zuiko 90/2 is good even today, except for some longitudinal CA. Olympus made their 90/2 some twenty years ahead of the Zeiss 100/2. That's s a great achievement. Voigtländer joins the club with Zeiss and Olympus making a full frame regular f/2 macro lens.
Ahh, I hope your hunch is correct. The mighty Voigt 125/2.5 clearly shortens FL quite a bit at 1:1. I don't remember how much. The extra light is welcome and working distance usually adequate, but not always with skittish critters.
bjornthun wrote:
It's a hunch I have, and it does maintain the working distance, which I find very practical. It is common in most modern macro lenses that the focal length drops as you approach the minimum ficus distance, which is only unpractical in my opinion, due to a shortened working distance. The Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar maintains its' focal length almost a 100% as you focus close.
Olympus has always made very fine macro lenses, for the OM system, 43 and now m43. It's one of their specialties. The OM Zuiko 90/2 is good even today, except for some longitudinal CA. Olympus made their 90/2 some twenty years ahead of the Zeiss 100/2. That's s a great achievement. Voigtländer joins the club with Zeiss and Olympus making a full frame regular f/2 macro lens. ...Show more →
I was an OM user in the film era, and the 2/50 and 2/90 were my most treasured lenses, and as you say, well ahead of their time...
Thank you for this. Although it's slightly smaller than the Zony FE 50/1.4 (77.2mm x 98.5mm vs 83.5mm x 108mm) and probably weighs less (CV won't reveal its weight), it's still too big and heavy for me. So, as Samuel Goldwyn said: "Include me out." I'll either resume my search for a mint OM 50/2 Macro or be content with the Makro-Elmarit-R 60/2.8.
genji wrote:
Thank you for this. Although it's slightly smaller than the Zony FE 50/1.4 (77.2mm x 98.5mm vs 83.5mm x 108mm) and probably weighs less (CV won't reveal its weight), it's still too big and heavy for me. So, as Samuel Goldwyn said: "Include me out." I'll either resume my search for a mint OM 50/2 Macro or be content with the Makro-Elmarit-R 60/2.8.
Another lens to watch is the new Sony 50/2.8. Sony specifically mentioned good correction of longitudinal CA, which is a cause of bokeh fringing, in the new lens. I hope there will be good test reports that can tell, if Sony's claim in this respect holds true.
I had the Leica 60/2.8 for a while, and liked the colours and rendering very much.
bjornthun wrote:
Another lens to watch is the new Sony 50/2.8. Sony specifically mentioned good correction of longitudinal CA, which is a cause of bokeh fringing, in the new lens. I hope there will be good test reports that can tell, if Sony's claim in this respect holds true.
I had the Leica 60/2.8 for a while, and liked the colours and rendering very much.
Wow, thanks for the heads-up, this wasn't even on my radar. No actual reviews that I could find but here's hoping...
Is there any good reason to design a lens with such a deeply recessed front element?
The MP 50 has a similar design, and it obviously reduces the need for a hood, but I would much have preferred a smaller lens with a larger hood that can be stored in reversed position.
....and as I am writing I think I get it, it is probably to make room for the necessary extension of the lens at close focus distances...
I'm not too fond of that kind of "bumpy" design of the focus ring. My oldest Minolta SR lens (100/3.5, from the original trio) has it, like the earlier Minolta MC lenses, but I much prefer the later MC/MD design.
As for the focal length and aperture I like to use my Tamron 60/2 on my Sony A7. It is one of the few APS-C lenses I still keep and it fills FF with a ~6-8% crop, and great sharpness across the frame. When shooting macro it completely fills the frame. Being designed for the more demanding APS-C it is also fantastically sharp on FF. With this in mind I'm not particularly interested in the Voigtländer, although I'm sure it's quite a different beast.
Is there any good reason to design a lens with such a deeply recessed front element?
The MP 50 has a similar design, and it obviously reduces the need for a hood, but I would much have preferred a smaller lens with a larger hood that can be stored in reversed position.
....and as I am writing I think I get it, it is probably to make room for the necessary extension of the lens at close focus distances...
My Minolta MD 100/4 macro has the same design, and also the older 50mm macro I believe. The front element does not extend in the recession however, it's the barrel that extends and becomes about x2 in length. The recession does serve as pretty good protection from accidents at closer distances though. There are probably reasons for it that I'm not aware of though.
Looks good so far: metal build, scalloped focus ring, lots of glass for modern performance. Plenty of examples of near-standard FL macros. 65mm, in particular, was used by Leitz for a Visoflex macro in 1960. I wish this C/V was slower: Coastal Opt 60/4 Apo Macro is more my speed.
DavidBM wrote:
Ripoff of whom? Certainly not Nikon, who was copying common design cues if the time. Maybe it's a Zeiss ripoff - they certainly were designing lenses that have this look in the fifties before Nikon. But CV designs have always echoed zeiss; the app labrhars look like early Zeiss teles, and the later sl11 lenses look like Zeiss ZE/f
While the cosmetics of the new 58 are similar to any number of 50's & 60's SLR lenses, they're an almost exact match to Nikon Pre-AI lenses from the 60's. Little things like the texture on the silver grip ring and the font on the name ring scream Nikkor. The only differences are the DoF marking location and the font on the aperture ring markings, the former match AI lenses and the latter match earlier SLII lenses.
According to Brian Smith, the exterior has been changed. http://briansmith.com/voigtlander-announces-three-new-e-mount-lenses/ Bearing Voigtlander’s premium APO-LANTHAR inscription, the M-mount version was first shown at Photokina 2016, but the lens has since undergone exterior design changes. I assume the M-mount reference was a typo.
mawz wrote:
While the cosmetics of the new 58 are similar to any number of 50's & 60's SLR lenses, they're an almost exact match to Nikon Pre-AI lenses from the 60's. Little things like the texture on the silver grip ring and the font on the name ring scream Nikkor. The only differences are the DoF marking location and the font on the aperture ring markings, the former match AI lenses and the latter match earlier SLII lenses.
It all started with the Germans
Topcor R lenses have the similar focus ring scallops.
Same with Takumars
Canon's Canoflex R and FL
Rokkor MC is similar, but sharper edges
Both Minolta and Konica had a variation too
Nikor and Voightlander did a reverse version, I think there were others, but can't think of the others at the moment, I don't know who came up with the reverse first, but they all were looking for something to set their lenses apart from the rest.
Someone with close ties to Cosina Voigtlander told me yesterday that the Macro Apo-Lanthar 65/2 is expected to ship "during the Northern Hemisphere summer".
